Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Forter vs RSA Adaptive Authentication comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Forter
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Fraud Detection and Prevention (6th)
RSA Adaptive Authentication
Average Rating
6.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Forter and RSA Adaptive Authentication aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Forter is designed for Fraud Detection and Prevention and holds a mindshare of 3.4%, down 4.0% compared to last year.
RSA Adaptive Authentication, on the other hand, focuses on Authentication Systems, holds 1.5% mindshare, up 0.5% since last year.
Fraud Detection and Prevention Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Forter3.4%
ThreatMetrix6.5%
BioCatch4.1%
Other86.0%
Fraud Detection and Prevention
Authentication Systems Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
RSA Adaptive Authentication1.5%
Microsoft Entra ID7.8%
Cisco Duo5.0%
Other85.7%
Authentication Systems
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1460475 - PeerSpot reviewer
Center Lead Developer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Great at detecting fraudulent behavior and has reduced our financial losses
This solution is scalable. You can add more users onto it because they raise the level depending on the traffic that you give them. For instance, if I'm going to send 1,000 evaluations every minute and then 10,000 evaluations every minute, the solution needs to be able to adjust. For them, it was quite easy to scale. I was using this solution in a team of seven people. Maintenance was also carried out by the team. We worked with tickets and when we saw that there was a new version or we needed changes that required integration, anyone working on the team could do it.
Directorc4e7 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Cyber Security at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
We need better ease of use; the product is overly complicated
There are many use cases that we have defined based on our business needs Ingestion of logs and raising alert space on those logs are the most valuable features. The product is basically unusable. We need better ease of use; it's overly complicated. It has taken years to implement. We used RSA…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Dashboards, customization and the analytics are all good, it's user friendly."
"The capability to manage your business policy related to security when required without vendor involvement."
"Our customer are seeing value from the product, as they experience cost reductions. They can stop fraud from their customers, then their customers can have a better experience from their services."
"Ingestion of logs and raising alert space on those logs are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is the stock tokens. That works the best for us."
"Risk Engine’s risk score, eFN, GeoIP, and device binding all coming together in the Policy Rules to decide when to escalate to MFA."
 

Cons

"Lacking granularity on the acceptance/rejection fraud options."
"I would like to see a more adaptive type of solution, something that we could use on our web pages..."
"Reporting modules is one of the major areas that can be improved further."
"RSA Adaptive Authentication lacks a mechanism to verify the identity of a new user in the Enrollment event workflow."
"Better filters when searching for events. The current features for current filters when searching fraud events are not very comprehensive. You can only filter by certain fields in the transaction."
"The product is basically unusable. We need better ease of use; it's overly complicated."
"It has taken years to implement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Keep the proxy service layer on premises. That consumes SaaS security services on the back-end."
"The pricing is $50 per head, yearly."
"You may need to opt for second best if funding is low and the number of users is huge. However, the pricing is able to be negotiated if your user figures are huge."
"Customers need to deploy the solution in a very expensive infrastructure. RSA should should think about a less expensive infrastructure for customers because the solution costs around $100,000, and the infrastructure needed to support that solution may be even more expensive than that price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fraud Detection and Prevention solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
42%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Performing Arts
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Kiwi.com, Fiverr, James Allen
ADP, Ameritas, Partners Healthcare
Find out what your peers are saying about ThreatMetrix, NICE, BioCatch and others in Fraud Detection and Prevention. Updated: January 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.